~ archived since 2018 ~

How come if the west is so sexist most woman feel actually liberated coming to these countries?

Takithereal · 2021-05-16T10:24:17+00:00

Women who migrated from a socially conservative country to a progressive country how significantly has your life changed?32,216 points•6,394...

Takithereal

May 16, 2021

44 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	How come if the west is so sexist most woman feel actually liberated coming to these countries?
Author	Takithereal
Upvotes	44
Comments	21
Date	May 16, 2021 10:24 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ndldyr/how_come_if_the_west_is_so_sexist_most_woman_feel/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-come-if-the-west-is-so-sexist-most-woman-feel.828301 https://theredarchive.com/post/828301

Comments

[–]d_nijmegen 23 points24 points25 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mollof2 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Oogaboogayikes 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dambalidbedam 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drekalo 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zealousideal_Good445 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Drekalo 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dat_walking_meme -12 points-11 points-10 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]omidoggo 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]purplelightofRED 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dat_walking_meme -10 points-9 points-8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]omidoggo 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_bro69 -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bojack35 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. What is thanks to feminism is that you believe that these things are feminist victories.

Voting rights: In the UK voting rights evolved like this

Divine right of royalty (the idea that the King/Queen was appointed by and only answerable to God)
1215 and the Magna Carta. Agreed by the royals in response to violent rebellion from powerful barons. Literally a council of just 25 barons granted the right to have a say on the level of taxes in exchange for pledging their local armies (compromised of men) to the crown not against it. However the crown still chose who these 25 people were.
1265 this changed to the local barons choosing their own local representative for their area.
1432 the right to vote for these representatives was in theory expanded to property owners who owned enough property to pay a large enough amount of property tax. The vote was one per qualifying household not per person. However local boroughs had their own criteria on what entailed a qualifying household it was not nationally consistent. To provide some context "A survey from 1780 revealed that the number of enfranchised voters amounted to only 3% of the United Kingdom’s population."
1832 The Reform Act. Actual representation emerges by expanding voting to all men over 21 who were the freeholders of property. However this is also the first time the law specified men only. This made about 20% males eligible to vote.
- 1867 working class men are included (but they still have to own a property and not be in debt plus other financial restrictions.) By 1867 the 20% figure above had dropped to 14% thanks to social changes including changes in housing. This act increased it to about 26% of men.

This followed hot on the heels of the American Civil War which along with decades of campaign from chartists and the reform league created huge pressure to expand suffrage. Public protests got as far as forcing the home secretary to resign and made reform inevitable.

*1918 Representation of the People Act. Women over 30 get the right to vote as long as they or their husband are property owners. Men over 21 can vote regardless of personal social standing - but on the condition they consent to national service.

The reason for the differing age limits was because there were over 1.5 million more women than men in the UK as a result of so many men - most under 30 - dying in the world war. Obviously it had been nearly all men not women who died in the war thanks to patriachy.../s. The intention was for the age requirement to be equalised after a decade once the numbers of men/women over 21 became more equal and this is what happened.

Following this act it was roughly 13 million men and 8.5 million women who could vote. A split of about 60/40. However the 60% of men had the vote on the condition of being required to fight for the state if asked. No such condition for the women.

This 60/40 split is in spite of just 40% of adult women being able to vote. It had been about 60% of men able to vote prior to the war. It was the blatant injustice of so many men who fought for their country being unable to vote that heavily influenced public cries for further electoral reform and the removal of property requirements for those men.

Alongside that yes feminism had absolutely played a part - well the suffragettes but we can call them feminists. They spent about 60 years campaigning for women to have the same voting rights as men but were fairly unsuccessful in persuading other women due to the associated male responsibilities - a wise decision from those women given the scale of death those voting rights brought to young men sent off to war. In securing women the right to vote without the requirement to serve this act held up as a feminist victory for equality was actually a feminist victory for preferential treatment for women.

If you are in any doubt about the fact it was male deaths at war not suffragettes which had the most influence on this Act I give you the quote from the MP when introducing the act:

"War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period, of so many of our population from the class of electors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise."

*1928. No property requirements for women and the age is dropped from 30 to 21.

*1960. National service requirement to be eligible to vote removed for men. Complete gender equality and the democracy we recognise today.

*1969. Voting age for both genders is dropped from 21 to 18.

Simply put the historical development of voting rights was always centred on 1) class - specifically land/property ownership 2) the principle of paying tax 3) first barons pledging their male peasants then individual men buying the right to vote with the promise to fight for the state.

While there was undoubtedly a gender divide in voting this only existed from 1832 to 1928. For less than 100 years your gender affected your right to vote. This was preceded by 600 years where it didn't and followed by over a century now where it doesn't. Comparatively your status as a landowner affected your right to vote for 700 years. The idea of men always having the right to vote and women not is just historically inaccurate. From 1939 - 1960 men of voting age were forced to do national military service' tying back to the ideas of suffrage in exchange for male blood first seen when barons pledged their male armies to the monarch for the right to vote.

Women being 'allowed' to have jobs: This is a much swifter rebuttal - women have always been legally allowed to work (although not in all careers) and the majority of lower class simply had to do so. Not working was primarily a privilege enjoyed by upper class women not an oppression and not of all women. Again class was the main factor not gender. Anyone looking at this ignoring the huge changes we have seen in technology' medicine' contraception' infant mortality' shift from primarily hard physical labour to mostly service jobs' improved employee rights (actually being employees not serfs 'allowed' to farm some land of your own in exchange for slaving away on their landowners fields) etc. Etc. Is either stupid or trying to misrepresent the past.

I'm sure you know all this so are you being deliberately stupid or trying to misrepresent the past?

[–]Greg_W_Allan 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_bro69 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omidoggo 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omidoggo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link